The US Is Installing New Power- and Accuracy-Increasing Sensors on Its Nuclear Weapons 147
new nukes
"A sophisticated electronic sensor buried in hardened metal shells at the tip of a growing number of America's ballistic missiles reflects a significant achievement in weapons engineering that experts say could help pave the way for reductions in the size of the country's nuclear arsenal," reports the Washington Post, "but also might create new security perils."
The wires, sensors, batteries and computing gear now being installed on hundreds of the most powerful U.S. warheads give them an enhanced ability to detonate with what the military considers exquisite timing over some of the world's most challenging targets, substantially increasing the probability that in the event of a major conflict, those targets would be destroyed in a radioactive rain of fire, heat and unearthly explosive pressures.
The new components — which determine and set the best height for a nuclear blast — are now being paired with other engineering enhancements that collectively increase what military planners refer to as the individual nuclear warheads' "hard-target kill capability." This gives them an improved ability to destroy Russian and Chinese nuclear-tipped missiles and command posts in hardened silos or mountain sanctuaries, or to obliterate military command and storage bunkers in North Korea, also considered a potential U.S. nuclear target.
The increased destructiveness of the warheads means that in some cases fewer weapons could be needed to ensure that all the objectives in the nation's nuclear targeting plans are fully met, opening a path to future shrinkage of the overall arsenal, current and former U.S. officials said in a number of interviews, in which some spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive technology.
Production of the first of many high-yield nuclear warheads containing the gear, developed over the past decade at a cost of billions of dollars, was completed in July for installation on missiles aboard Navy submarines, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced.
The Post notes that the U.S. has now installed the technology on hundreds of submarine-based warheads, doubling their destructive power (according to estimates by a Georgetown professor).
The acting administrator of America's National Nuclear Security Administration called it "the culmination of over a decade of work."
The new components — which determine and set the best height for a nuclear blast — are now being paired with other engineering enhancements that collectively increase what military planners refer to as the individual nuclear warheads' "hard-target kill capability." This gives them an improved ability to destroy Russian and Chinese nuclear-tipped missiles and command posts in hardened silos or mountain sanctuaries, or to obliterate military command and storage bunkers in North Korea, also considered a potential U.S. nuclear target.
The increased destructiveness of the warheads means that in some cases fewer weapons could be needed to ensure that all the objectives in the nation's nuclear targeting plans are fully met, opening a path to future shrinkage of the overall arsenal, current and former U.S. officials said in a number of interviews, in which some spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive technology.
Production of the first of many high-yield nuclear warheads containing the gear, developed over the past decade at a cost of billions of dollars, was completed in July for installation on missiles aboard Navy submarines, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced.
The Post notes that the U.S. has now installed the technology on hundreds of submarine-based warheads, doubling their destructive power (according to estimates by a Georgetown professor).
The acting administrator of America's National Nuclear Security Administration called it "the culmination of over a decade of work."
New accuracy ... (Score:5, Funny)
They're finally switching from Apple Maps to Google Maps. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they made the switch after they found dozens of cruise missiles loitering around a cul-de-sac at the end of a one-way street per hour!
New owners. (Score:2)
Re: New owners. (Score:2)
and who exactly will the Palestinians nuke? Israelis? So you want to fire it straight up in air and drop it on themselves in a warped coyote/road runner type way?
They replaced a 1960s era sensor (Score:3)
Propaganda article (Score:2)
No one who knows the working details of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal will tell them to a reporter.
This is unspecified unspecific chest thumping.
The intended audience may be the PLA's strategic planners and the intended message is likely no more than, "stay out of Taiwan."
For anyone wondering what Trump's "my button is bigger than yours" tweet would look like out of a Democrat administration...you have your example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And get Taiwan back from China. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
We may be able to maintain their de facto independence for the forseeable future, but we're never going to be able to present anything more than a strategic deterrent, and certainly not a force capable of preventing the rapid toppling of Taipei.
Even if the CPC were to fall, you know the first thing they're going to do is make sure their old enemies waving the flag with the KMT flag embedded in it aren't around to pick up their pieces or hasten the fall. And we'll be out
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy it.
China is well aware of our nuclear capabilities. The yield of our weaponry isn't even relevant, and neither is theirs.
Neither of us have a viable first-strike capability, and both of us have second-strike capacity more than adequate to wipe out the civilization of the other.
In the case of any exchange, both of our countries are fucking wrecked, and both of us will be topped by our neighbors in short order in the na
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you see a conservative behind every post? Stage four TDS is fatal, eh?
Y'all might read who he was replying to, because RightWingNutJob wrote:
"For anyone wondering what Trump's "my button is bigger than yours" tweet would look like out of a Democrat administration...you have your example." Or you just get triggered to shit your pants when someone disagrees with your lord and savior.
Re: (Score:2)
The funniest thing of all is how they have Biden Derangement Syndrome, just as bad as the Trump Derangement Syndrome they accuse others of. But then, I don't know that political partisans ever been capable of self-reflection. All they have is a lust for Power as all costs, in order to validate their ideology (even if it's a complete failure).
Two sides of the same coin. And it's so difficult to get the majority of non-kooks riled up enough to curbstomp the nuts, left or right.
Re: Propaganda article (Score:2)
Humanity is still in the dark ages (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We literally spend on education, saving the environment, and infrastructure improvement. Your post is invalid.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm more than happy to talk about whether we spend enough on climate change or education, and too much on military, but at least get the basic facts straight, that's all I'm saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you need to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand how much time and effort and money people put into funding education, environment, infrastructure improvement, etc?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? How much money do we spend on corrupt military contractors? You have no idea, you're making stuff up,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Humanity is still in the dark ages (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Y'all forget about what each state spends on social programs (education is one) from their own budgets, funded from state-administered taxes. It's easy to take down the Feds on all that evil defense spending when you ignore what each state does on its own. It does add up...what with California being the 5th-largest economy in the world all on its own and having Prop 89 mandate education funding in the state.
We may spend more than the next 20+ countries combined (most of whom are allies) on the DoD but when
Re: (Score:2)
A little more complicated than that... (Score:2)
These new enhancements in a sense are created to never be used. Having this capability and announcing it is telling all adversaries that if they fuck around, they will find out.
If the US really wanted to use these new enhancements, why would we tell our enemies about them? We'd want to keep them secret so that enemies don't know that their hardened targets were actually still vulnerable. Clearly deterrence is the goal.
Nuclear deterrence is kind of a screwy way to run the world, but it's hard to argue aga
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that our societies are too willing to pour (vast amounts of) money into destruction than things that actually benefit us as a whole.
I think this appears the case on the surface, but if you dig a little you'll find that it doesn't hold up.
For the last several hundred years (at minimum!) war has been a business. Corporations need money. They need all the money. And they'll create entire new markets to make money in if nothing stops them from doing so.
The corporate influence on government goes back a very, very long way. Look at the East India Tea Company - they had armies and navies and ruled countries in the 1800s. Dig into the civil war
Re: Humanity is still in the dark ages (Score:2)
Increased spending on education above a rather low minimum per student(with the vast majority of districts not already hitting that minimum being rural districts) is not correlated with better outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Humanity is still in the dark ages (Score:2)
No, I'm talking low income areas. The DC public school system has some of the highest per student spending in the nation and its outcomes are complete shit. Course recently, with the leftist focus on equity in the school system and canceling of AP classes combined with the last 30 years of virtually eradicating the ability of the system to flunk out students or hold them back a grade they have decided to strap on a jetpack and race to the bottom as fast as they can get there.
Re: (Score:2)
but another widget for our death machines, we have a bottomless well of cash for that.
This is how USA economics work: keynesianism through military spending
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that created wealth is not fairly shared. But that can happen with any method used to push economy.
Well, perhaps helicopter money would benefit the poor more efficiently than military spending, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The food that was not canned, would have spoiled anyway.
Don't assume malice when competence is sufficient. (Score:2)
We need to maintain our nuclear weapons or they will cease to serve their intended purpose. You can say whatever you like about their intended purpose but we have them, there is a reason to have them, and if they are to work then we need to put money into keeping them functional. I suspect that the increased power and accuracy is merely a side effect of maintaining the function of these weapons. At some point the fuses would need replacing and in replacing them with newer technology means they get more a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...another widget for our death machines, we have a bottomless well of cash for that.
The military-industrial complex: no expense spared in defence of freedom.
Just wait awhile. (Score:3)
The process of complete destruction is well under way.
Re:Just wait awhile. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just the reported ones are a long list (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This is personal for me. I was working at a likely target the day Stanislav Petrov broke standing orders and headed off a nuclear war.
Re: (Score:2)
After every strategic target was hit, they'd have had enough left over to wipe out the avocado orchards in the Central Valley just for shits and giggles.
Re:Just wait awhile. (Score:4, Interesting)
What the fuck are you talking about?
There is almost zero chance humans could go extinct. We can eat more shit than most animal species can. We have higher order thinking to adapt to environmental changes in a way no other species has. We can survive in the arctic and the deserts at elevation and in fetid swamps. We can build a ship out of wood and using the stars alone for navigation sail thousands of miles across the ocean.
Humans are incredibly adaptable, in a way almost nothing else is. We'd have to turn the air toxic or some shit to kill off humans. If we can live until we're 20-30 before dying of cancer from all the radiation, humans will survive as a species.
Sure, it's going to be a miserable, shitty existance compared to our current comfort, but that's been humanity's path for hundreds of thousands of years. We've been through glacial cycles, plagues, pestilence, desertification, all sorts of shit. FFS, we've been doing BRAIN SURGERY for thousands of years. In Peru they've got thousand year old skulls with lots of holes drilled in them to relieve brain swelling! There's evidence they were more successful than we were in more modern times, up into the early 1900s.
Humans are brilliant and adaptable. You need to literally make all of the air or water everywhere on EARTH poisonious to us to have a shot at wiping us out as a species. We can subsist on insect larva, mushrooms, and tubers if we need to. We can live on the edge of the arctic if most of the earth is too hot, or we can live in a narrow strip of the tropics if most of the earth is too cold. If plants are poisonous we can remove the poison and eat the rest. Primative societies have been doing that for at least tens of thousands of years.
You almost literally need to wipe out the cockroaches before humans will go, because if need be, we'll eat those to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking forward to fighting my first super mutant.
Do the Warheads fit the rockets? (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Hypocrites (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get where this sentiment comes from, but na, man. Just na.
The U.S. is by far a benevolent force in this world, but nuclear weapons aren't toys, and it is the responsibility of every single country that has them to make sure proliferation stops with them.
The NNPT exists because everyone fucking agrees with this sentiment.
I'm very anti-war, but I'd vote instantly to conventionally wipe NK off the fucking map if they threatened the US with missile launch.
Iran I'm less worried about. I don't belie
Re: (Score:2)
Not by far a benevolent force- far from a benevolent force
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. is by far a benevolent force in this world
Tell that any country in South America.
Or the Phillipines, or as it matters: North Korea.
Or even Japan: and the rioters will probably hang you.
Perhaps you want to read some history ...
I'm very anti-war, but I'd vote instantly to conventionally wipe NK off the fucking map if they threatened the US with missile launch.
NK only exists because of fucking American idiots. If you had not _insisted_ at the end of WWII it is a part of Japan, and rightfully occupied
Re: (Score:2)
Iranian leadership has stated repeatedly that they want to wipe Israel off the map. Nukes would make that possible.
Re: Hypocrites (Score:2)
Re:Conflict (Score:4)
âoeViolence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedomsâ â Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Re: (Score:2)
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Yeah no kidding, it settles it by determining who has the most powerful military. Bullying taken to the extreme is not the basis for a rational society.
Re: (Score:2)
But sometimes war amounts to two (or more) civilizations disagreeing on an important issue, and everyone reaches a general consensus that they cant resolve it by talking. At that point, a war is fought and the decision is resolved in favor of the winner. Example: ww2. In general, both sides WANTED the war. Or, at least, most of the world resigned themselves to it, b
Re: (Score:2)
Afghanistan was his base, so we said "give him up", the Afganis said "nope, screw you"
Actually Afghanistan said. "show us some proof and we'll extradite him" and as America at that point didn't really have proof but were looking for a war, they invaded. While at it, they also invaded Iraq with the flimsiest evidence as well.
Re:Conflict (Score:5, Insightful)
After 9/11, the US streamrolled over Afghanistan militarily, and nobody expected any other outcome. There was a long period of time where we could have done whatever we wanted with the place. 500 years ago, we could have a) burned their cities to the ground, b) made them pay tribute for several generations, or c) colonized them. Some combo of a b and c would also have been acceptable. However, since the US is nowadays slightly more civilized, we opted to occupy, try to help them rebuild, and maybe, just maybe, influence them towards a more civilized way of existing. The US won the military war, but yes, we dismally failed to change afganistan in any significant way whatsoever. The second we left, the whole country willingly reverted to a brutal tribal fundamentalist existence. It's not how I want to live, but *shrugg* to each their own. Its apparently the way of life that they want. We tried for 20 years to change their minds. the soviets did too, with similar results. Enough is enough. You do you.
But, you're really going to tell me it was some sort of victory of Afghanistan and the Taliban over the US? Sure, maybe so. "hooray, our country is a wasteland, we don't know how to produce anything other than heroin, the next generation of children is going to be permanently stunted because of starvation, we're weak and beholden to Pakistan, but hey at least we can declare islamic law, freely beat any independent-thinking woman to death and chop off the hands off anyone who shoplifts.
Feel free to call that a victory for Afghanistan over the US. I sincerely hope you never wind up in a position of power. We failed in afganistan because we tried to do something extremely difficult - improve a country that absolutely no interest in self-betterment.
Re: (Score:2)
Over four times as many American troops killed themselves as were killed by the enemy in post-9/11 conflicts.
I'd call that conclusive proof that nobody won, but we lost
Re: (Score:2)
Political willpower has little to do with our status as a superpower.
If we had felt the tickle, we could have reduced Afghanistan to an even more deserted fucking wasteland.
It's not like we were losing the war of attrition or some shit.
Re: (Score:2)
This tells you all you need to know about US involvement in Afghanistan [taskandpurpose.com].
HTH, HAND
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why should anyone take notice of what he wrote?
Because what he said, referring to the quote I made on violence, is truth. An this truth no matter what society you live or have lived in. Thousands of years later, why do we take notice of SunTuz or Plato?
Re: (Score:3)
Not when all Heinlein is doing is a clumsy rehash of the "iron fist in a velvet glove" / "speak softly but carry a big stick" axioms that were popular in the USA at the time. It's like citing Wikipedia or Readers' Digest rather than the actual source - Nobody's going to take you seriously.
Well, apparently someone is taking Heinlein's Starship Troopers seriously. This article in Wikipedia about the book demonstrates that far more than I can here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
After what I wrote, you're citing Wikipedia?
Pretty much all that is required. You stated that "nobody takes Heinlein (Starship Troopers) seriously." I point you to a article that shows you are wrong. From there you can do a little more research and prove it to yourself. Self education on the subject is a task on your part, not mine.
Re: (Score:3)
Apples to Oranges. Heinlein's views in Starship Troopers bear serous consideration and study. His views on violence have been proven by history time and time again. What that reflects on the human animal is worth pondering.
Where as QAnon is nothing but a bunch of conspiracy spreading knuckle draggers who's all would be better off locked up in a padded room with a jacket that ties in the back.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah... Clearly you have no clue about what is being discussed here. Why don't you actually go read Heinlein's book then get back to us. Till then I'm going to stand with the people that have a clue.
As you where.
Re:Conflict (Score:4)
I always love it when someone quotes Starship Troopers, which is fiction, as some kind of grand wisdom for humanity.
I suppose you feel the same way when someone quotes, SunTuz, Plato, Confucius, or the works of Martian Luther King, Jr. People, like you, that complain about works like this, in your case Starship Troopers, usually have not read or understand the works.
Heinlein wrote Starship troopers as a satire about the current military and political condition. The work is discussion on philosophical and moral issues about war and the outcome. It is considered philosophical fiction. I'm willing to bet you only saw the movie and never actually read the book. Well you can pretty much forget the movie. Other than a basic bug war, and some throw a way book lines, it had very little to do with the books. Let's look more at that quote.
Now then, regardless of the source of the quotes in question, one can not escape the truth in these words. Violence, or the threat of violence, has settled more issues in history. An that, for better or worse, is simply a fact.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm not really dismissing Heinlein here. He wrote the thing, possibly very well aware of what he wrote there. You even say yourself that he wrote it as some kind of satire.
So let's talk about about the last sentence in that quote. Look out for sophism. Look in particular at the claim of the 'contrary opinion' where violence is supposed to not solve anything. Whose positio
Re: (Score:3)
I understand that when people resort to quote fiction as their big proof of something, they don't have a lot of proof for anything. And I'm not really dismissing Heinlein here. He wrote the thing, possibly very well aware of what he wrote there. You even say yourself that he wrote it as some kind of satire.
In the context of the quote in question history clearly shows this to be true. Instead of the asking if this is true, the better question is "is violence the best option?" Violence in of itself is always an "option." It just is, rarely, the best option.
I propose that if violence is the best answer, then it really depends on what side you come out on.
Re:Conflict (Score:4, Insightful)
The Fascist is as much part of the system as the Marxist, or any other non-extremist position. What's to be avoided is that one extreme takes over and then manages to dismantle all the safeguards that are put into place by separation of powers. That neither happened in the US nor the UK.
A society like in Starship Troopers can pretty much only exist if there's some strong external force that if it is not dealt with brings extinction.
Without that the prime enemy becomes the own people unless they want me to believe that the people in charge will give up the power structures that benefited them so well for so long. There's a reason why Heinlein had to use this fictional framing device with an alien threat to make that form of society look functional.
Re: (Score:2)
A society like in Starship Troopers can pretty much only exist if there's some strong external force that if it is not dealt with brings extinction.
You mean, something like "climate change"? I think we can find a few INTERNAL "forces of extinction" that might be countered by limiting the democratic "franchise" to those who have proven to posses some altruism or selflessness. Clearly, the interest of our "elected" has been subverted by money and power in a lot of democracies. We need people who are selfless but the it seems that the environment snuffs them out early and often.
Heinlein was an optimist, like a lot of sci-fi writers of his age. I hope we c
Re: (Score:2)
Universal suffrage has proven to be a failure.
Compared to what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Conflict (Score:2)
We did, in part. Resolving disputes without violence is what the UN and other multilateral and bilateral organizations and treaties are for. But everyone is wary of the other side deciding to ignore said dispute resolution methods, so they keep armed on the offchance non-violent resolutions become necessary once more. Which in turn keeps all sides intent on continuing to solve disputes non-violently.
Of course, all that's required for things to break apart is a bug somewhere, or a trigger-happy lunatic with
Re: (Score:2)
We did, in part. Resolving disputes without violence is what the UN and other multilateral and bilateral organizations and treaties are for. But everyone is wary of the other side deciding to ignore said dispute resolution methods, so they keep armed on the offchance non-violent resolutions become necessary once more. Which in turn keeps all sides intent on continuing to solve disputes non-violently.
Of course, all that's required for things to break apart is a bug somewhere, or a trigger-happy lunatic with the power to decide on a first strike. But then, humanity as a whole has the duty and responsibility of preventing trigger-happy lunatics from getting that power. If humanity as a whole decides, by action or inaction, that it's fine for one or more of them to get it, well, that's what humanity as a whole have chosen, and hence it's also humanity as a whole who are going to bear the consequences. Karma is always collective, never individual.
Well, sure. How ya gonna do that? Making sure that trigger happy lunatics don't get the power takes force.
The problems with us humans is that we are nasty assholes. We have evolved a big smart brain, with a highly functional limbic system. The two parts of our brain often join forces.
We have an innate sense of "us" and "the other". We have an attraction to violence.
And all that leads to the problem that any peaceful non-warring society will eventually be taken over by non-peaceful groups. There might
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty certain that for all the amazing things that we do, if we don't manage to evolve out of our deep seated propensity for violence, we're going to gleefully extinct ourselves.
That evolutionary potential exists, but it's underdeveloped, probably due to biological restrictions. One of the best evidence-based psychological theories available is Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development [wikipedia.org].
According to it, the cognitive complexity of moral reasoning follows a Normal distribution similar, in a way, to IQ, except that distributed in 6 bins. About 75% to 80% of the global adult population is in stages 3 or 4, which are groupthink-based, the difference being that stage 3 has "my group is bett
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty certain that for all the amazing things that we do, if we don't manage to evolve out of our deep seated propensity for violence, we're going to gleefully extinct ourselves.
That evolutionary potential exists, but it's underdeveloped, probably due to biological restrictions. One of the best evidence-based psychological theories available is Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development [wikipedia.org].
According to it, the cognitive complexity of moral reasoning follows a Normal distribution similar, in a way, to IQ, except that distributed in 6 bins.
Thanks for the link - I'm looking at it now.
Re: (Score:2)
Do these ways involve sex? Otherwise pornhub has solved the world's problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Do these ways involve sex? Otherwise pornhub has solved the world's problems.
It seems to work for the Bonobo Chimps.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to nitpick: there are no "Bonobo Chimps"
There are Bonobo and Chimpanzees - 2 completely different species.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to nitpick: there are no "Bonobo Chimps"
There are Bonobo and Chimpanzees - 2 completely different species.
That definitely is a nitpick. Yes, they are speciated, but people have called them pygmy chimps just about forever.
The Bonobo is pan paniscus, and the Chimpanzee is pan troglodytes
If we are to go whole pedantic, they are both panins.
But this side foray is not about the nits, but that pan paniscus is a much more peaceful animal, and they often solve their problems via sex. Which is what prompted the reply to Ostracus.
Re: (Score:2)
There are. And they're all backed by "if we don't work this out, we're going to have to have a war, and nobody wants that".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for that. Now, how to convince the other guy?
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please tell Jinping that. Currently he wants to Jinping Taiwan into subservience because the CCP cannot stand free Chinese ruling themselves. Get back to us on how that goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that is something we definitely need to communicate. We are not better than China or worse, we are equals but if they decide to fight and oppress people, it will end badly.
Re: Conflict (Score:2)
Rethinking "Security" to be Mutual and Intrinsic (Score:2)
How can we transcend some 21st century conflicts? As I suggest here: https://pdfernhout.net/recogni... [pdfernhout.net] ...
"... Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
There is a fundamental mismatch between
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of countries today share resources/land/intelligence/whatever without violence. This is something we can do.
Re: Conflict (Score:2)
*looks at Albania/Kosovo conflict*
Could it be they exist in peace because there are really big fucking hammers that will come down on them if they don't?
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of countries
...
*looks at Albania/Kosovo conflict*
...
Could it be they didn't mean those 2 to be included in The vast majority of countries?
Re: (Score:2)
Kosovo was an ethnic-Albanian majority region (under forced Ottoman rule) which was given to Yugoslavia by the great powers of Imperial Europe following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. In-fact the entire ethnic-Albanian region would have been given to Yugoslavia and Albania would have never existed if it weren't for the intervention of President Woodrow Wilson. In the 90's Mi
Re: (Score:2)
You may think so, but check out the population changes that happen due to war. It's always minimal.